Per Curiam.
In June 1998, petitioner charged respondent with professional misconduct alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) and DR 2-106 (A) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [a]). The alleged misconduct stems from an allegation that respondent charged an excessive fee to a client in a divorce action. Petitioner moves to confirm, and respondent cross-moves to disaffirm, a Referee's report sustaining the charge.
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.